Team Performance Management: An International Journal

Moderators of shared leadership: work function and team autonomy

Maj S. Fausing Hans Jeppe Jeppesen Thomas S. Jnsson Joshua Lewandowski Michelle C. Bligh

Article information:

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Maj S. Fausing Hans Jeppe Jeppesen Thomas S. Jnsson Joshua Lewandowski Michelle C. Bligh, (2013),"Moderators of
shared leadership: work function and team autonomy", Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19
Iss 5/6 pp. 244 - 262
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038
Downloaded on: 09 March 2016, At: 19:10 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1588 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Julia E. Hoch, (2014),"Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams", Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 29 Iss 5 pp. 541-564 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2012-0053
Michelle C. Bligh, Craig L. Pearce, Jeffrey C. Kohles, (2006),"The importance of self- and shared leadership in team
based knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership dynamics", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp.
296-318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610663105
Hakan Erkutlu, (2012),"The impact of organizational culture on the relationship between shared leadership and
team proactivity", Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 1/2 pp. 102-119 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591211207734

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:456666 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

TPM
19,5/6

Moderators of shared leadership:

work function and team autonomy
Maj S. Fausing, Hans Jeppe Jeppesen and Thomas S. Jnsson

244

Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus University,

Aarhus, Denmark, and

Joshua Lewandowski and Michelle C. Bligh

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences,

Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose Previous studies show that sharing leadership in teams offers potential performance
benefits across various contexts. This paper aims to investigate moderators of the effectiveness of
shared leadership. In particular, it seeks to explore the moderating effects of team work function
manufacturing versus knowledge team work and team autonomy.
Design/methodology/approach In order to test the hypotheses, the authors conducted
hierarchical regression analyses and ran moderated two-way regression analyses using a field
sample of 552 employees comprising 81 teams in a Danish manufacturing company.
Findings Contrary to expectations, the results demonstrated a non-significant relationship between
shared leadership and team performance. However, as expected, work function significantly
moderated this relationship such that shared leadership exhibited a negative relationship with
manufacturing team performance and a positive relationship with knowledge team performance.
Moreover, team autonomy was positively related to performance, and it significantly moderated the
relationship between shared leadership and team performance.
Research limitations/implications The study provides a potentially useful framework for
understanding boundary conditions for the effectiveness of shared leadership. However, since the
design of the study is cross-sectional, direct causation cannot be inferred. Moreover, the study took
place within a single organization in a Danish context and, therefore, care must be taken in
generalizing the findings without additional evidence from further research.
Originality/value To the authors knowledge, the study is the first to obtain evidence which
indicates that the success of shared leadership may depend on the team work function and the level of
team autonomy.
Keywords Shared leadership, Team autonomy, Technology dimensions, Team performance,
Leadership, Team working, Denmark, Manufacturing industries
Paper type Research paper

Team Performance Management

Vol. 19 No. 5/6, 2013
pp. 244-262
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/TPM-11-2012-0038

1. Introduction
A shift in the nature of work from production to knowledge work has implied that
work tasks are becoming increasingly complex and ambiguous. Concomitantly, the
workforce is becoming more skilled and educated (Pearce and Manz, 2005). However, in
order to meet the needs of the changing workforce and to leverage employee skills and
knowledge, organizations have to rethink their ways of organizing, managing, and
training (Drucker, 2008; Gronn, 2002). Moreover, demands for innovation and the
complexity and dynamics facing organizations imply that no single employee or leader
has all the relevant and appropriate knowledge in every situation (Pearce and Conger,
2003; Pearce et al., 2009; Perry et al., 1999). Particularly, this has resulted in an increase

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

in the application of team work since the 1990 s (Marks and Richards, 2012; Mueller
et al., 2000) and following this, an increased tendency to decentralize decision-making
and offer employees more discretion (Burke et al., 2011; Morgeson et al., 2010; Zaccaro
et al., 2001). As a consequence of technical and structural changes, it may be critical
that organizations shift attention away from traditional, hierarchical leadership models
dominated by command and control and adopt new leadership models that fit a team
context, take advantage of the expertise employees possess (Day et al., 2004; 2006;
Drucker, 2008; Pearce, 2010), and allow them to apply their skills autonomously and
interdependently.
Scholars suggest that actively sharing leadership responsibilities within a team is
particularly effective in knowledge-based work (Bligh et al., 2006; Cox et al., 2003; Day
et al., 2006). Shared leadership is a social, horizontal influence process in which
leadership emanates from and is distributed among team members (Carson et al., 2007;
Pearce and Conger, 2003). Thus, shared leadership provides the context for integrating
and bringing into action the dispersed ideas, expertise, and skills of multiple
individuals (Bligh et al., 2006; Cox et al., 2003; Friedrich et al., 2009) rather than relying
solely on a single hierarchical team leader (Perry et al., 1999). Consequently,
organizations can realize their knowledge potential and remain competitive, and
employees can utilize their skills and competencies and experience larger purpose and
meaningfulness in their jobs.
Growing attention has been devoted to the theoretical and empirical exploration of
shared leadership in teams, while substantial behavioral, cognitive, and performance
benefits of shared leadership have been uncovered across organizational contexts
(Wassenaar and Pearce, 2012). In particular, studies suggest that shared leadership is
an especially important predictor of team performance when compared to vertical
leadership (Ensley et al., 2006; Pearce and Sims, 2002; Pearce et al., 2004). However, is
shared leadership applicable in all contexts or do the benefits of shared leadership
apply exclusively to knowledge work? And, can we identify important moderators of
the effectiveness of shared leadership belonging to the nature of team work?
Most shared leadership studies have been conducted among knowledge workers
(Carson et al., 2007; Carte et al., 2006; Choi, 2009; Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce et al., 2004),
including management teams (Ensley et al., 2006; Pearce and Sims, 2002) and student
samples (Bergman et al., 2012; Boies et al., 2010; Hooker and Csikszentmihalyi, 2003;
Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002; Small and Rentsch, 2010), while there seems to be a lack
of studies that compare the potentially differential effects of shared leadership in
knowledge versus manufacturing teams. Furthermore, although several theoretical
frameworks and scholars within the shared leadership literature stress the importance
of exploring moderators of shared leadership (e.g. Avolio et al., 2009; Bligh et al., 2006;
Carson et al., 2007; Cox et al., 2003; Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce and
Conger, 2003), in order to account for different strengths in the relationship between
shared leadership and performance (Hoch et al., 2010b), few studies have actually done
so. In the current paper, we argue that team work function in terms of knowledge
versus manufacturing work and team autonomy are two relevant and critical
moderators of the relationship between shared leadership and team performance. Since
shared leadership is defined as an emergent process, where leadership rotates to the
individuals with the most relevant skills and expertise in a given situation (Carson
et al., 2007; Pearce and Conger, 2003), team autonomy as well as diverse and dispersed

Moderators
of shared
leadership
245

TPM
19,5/6

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

246

knowledge among team members provides the necessary platform for shared
leadership to emerge successfully.
The purpose of the present study is, therefore, to examine the potential moderating
effects of knowledge work as opposed to manufacturing work and of team autonomy
on the relationship between shared leadership and manager rated team performance.
2. Shared leadership and team performance
Overall, shared leadership is a type of collective leadership (Yammarino et al., 2012). It
thus bears many similarities to and is often used interchangeably with notions such as,
for example, distributed leadership (Bolden, 2011; Gronn, 2002), collective team
leadership (Hiller et al., 2006), informal leadership (Neubert, 1999), emergent leadership
(Carte et al., 2006), and rotating leadership (Erez et al., 2002) that also view leadership
as emanating from the interaction of multiple individuals within or across
organizational levels. In particular, shared leadership involves horizontally
emergent, actively distributed, and rotating leadership behaviors and roles within a
team context (Carson et al., 2007; Cox et al., 2003; Ensley et al., 2006; Pearce and Conger,
2003; Perry et al., 1999). Following this, shared leadership is commonly operationalized
as team members perceptions of other team members leadership behaviors including,
for example, transformational, transactional, directive, and empowering leadership
(Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce and Sims, 2000; 2002). In comparison, distributed leadership
involves dispersion and distribution of leadership and responsibility throughout an
organization and not only in a team context (Bolden, 2011; Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Yukl,
2008). Shared leadership is defined as a dynamic, interactive influence process among
individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement
of group or organizational goals or both (Pearce and Conger, 2003, p. 1). Thus, instead
of having only one team leader, which may restrict the information and knowledge
exchange (Neubert, 1999), shared leadership involves the active and mutual
engagement of several individuals in the influence and leadership processes (Carson
et al., 2007; Pearce and Sims, 2000; 2002). The emergence of multiple leaders in the team
implies the existence of divergent perspectives and a greater amount of information
exchanged and shared (Neubert, 1999). Consequently, sharing leadership in a team
may facilitate knowledge sharing and create opportunities for knowledge creation
beyond the opportunities of individuals working independently. In this way, shared
leadership can be viewed as essential in raising team performance, especially in
complex team work.
The potential performance benefits of shared leadership is supported by initial
research that demonstrates positive relationships between shared leadership and team
performance across a wide range of contexts (e.g. Carson et al., 2007; Carte et al., 2006;
Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce and Sims, 2002; Pearce et al., 2004; Small and Rentsch, 2010).
Thus, building on theory and on existing studies, we propose that:
H1. Shared leadership and team performance are positively related.
However, not every context and team allows for effective enactment and use of shared
leadership. Bligh et al. (2006) similarly maintain that shared leadership may not be
suitable for every team environment. We therefore investigated the possible
moderating effects of team work function in terms of manufacturing and
knowledge teams and of team autonomy.

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

3. Moderators of shared leadership

3.1 Shared leadership and work function
With the rise of the knowledge worker (Drucker, 1995, 1999) and the consequent
increased complexity, the composition of the workforce has changed, organizational
structures have flattened, and organizations are faced with new demands and
challenges. Drucker (1999) argues that the biggest managerial challenge of the
twenty-first century is raising the productivity of knowledge workers. However, do the
same managerial practices apply to knowledge and manufacturing workers of today?
Even though positive relationships between shared leadership and team
performance are uncovered in previous studies, shared leadership may not be an
advantage in all work settings. In particular, the tasks and work conditions facing
knowledge workers are often much more multi-faceted, complex, and unfamiliar and in
this way fundamentally different from the conditions and tasks of manufacturing
workers (Bligh et al., 2006; Drucker, 1999; Pearce, 2010). Pearce (2010) similarly argues
that the nature of knowledge work requires that knowledge workers are managed quite
differently than manufacturing workers.
In order to conceptualize the differences reflected in manufacturing versus
knowledge team work we draw on Perrows (1967) model of technology, which offers a
basis for comparing organizations/work units. Technology is defined as the work
done in organizations (Perrow, 1967, p. 194), and it represents two continuous
dimensions: the number of exceptions and the degree of analyzability. The number of
exceptions refers to the degree of familiarity and predictability, with many exceptions
involving high unfamiliarity and few exceptions implying high familiarity (Perrow,
1967). Analyzability, on the other hand, ranges from analyzable tasks that are
characterized by specific procedures to handle the tasks to unanalyzable tasks that
require problem-solving and an active search for solutions (Daft and Macintosh, 1981).
Perrow (1967) further proposed a continuum of routine non-routine work, which
contains exceptions and analyzability. An example of routine work is assembly line
work (Perrow, 1967; Withey et al., 1983), which tends to be characterized by few
exceptions and well understood, analyzable tasks that are typically performed by
manufacturing workers/teams. This categorization is further supported by Hopp et al.
(2009) who classify blue collar tasks as routine and physical, which implies that they
can be specified in advance and that they do not require extensive knowledge. In
comparison, non-routine work (e.g. research and development, strategic planning) is
defined by its high complexity, many exceptions, and unanalyzable tasks (Perrow,
1967), which usually characterize knowledge work. Hopp et al. (2009) similarly argue
that white collar tasks, which include knowledge work, are defined by intellectual and
creative tasks that depend on the use of knowledge and generation of new solutions.
However, knowledge work may also be characterized by many exceptions, while at the
same time being analyzable because of specific procedures for solving tasks, which
may be the case for certain kinds of made-to-order engineering (Perrow, 1967).
Building on Perrows typology and Hopp et al.s (2009) task classifications, we argue
that effects of shared leadership vary for knowledge and manufacturing teams owing
to their diverse work and task conditions. Specifically, sharing leadership may be more
suitable to non-routine work characterized by many exceptions and unfamiliar work
situations, since these work conditions generally benefit from the sharing of
information and contributions from multiple individuals. Pearce and Manz (2005)

Moderators
of shared
leadership
247

TPM
19,5/6

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

248

similarly argue that shared leadership is most important when teams work on
complex, intellectual tasks that require continuous innovation and knowledge creation.
Conversely, traditional leadership models may be more suitable for routine tasks that
are characterized by less complexity and more familiarity and certainty (Pearce and
Manz, 2005). Furthermore, employees may react badly to sharing control and
leadership, if tasks are easily analyzable, predictable, and/or routine (Pearce, 2004).
This remains possible due to their sentiment that these processes may become too
time-consuming and impractical, if they can perform their tasks somewhat
independently without much input from other team members.
A single case study by Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen (2012) suggested that sharing
leadership in a manufacturing setting can be challenging. Furthermore, Neubert (1999)
failed to find a significant relationship between team performance and the proportion
of informal leaders in an exploratory study of 21 manufacturing teams. Hiller et al.
(2006), on the other hand, found that collective leadership was positively related to 12
out of 24 supervisor ratings of team effectiveness in traditional work teams. They
similarly argued that collective leadership in terms of shared enactment of leadership
roles should benefit all kinds of teams due to an increased capacity for getting things
done, regardless of the task (Hiller et al., 2006, p. 388). However, Neubert (1999),
Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen (2012), and Hiller et al. (2006), who investigated exclusively
manufacturing teams, did not compare shared leadership in relation to manufacturing
versus knowledge teams performance.
Accordingly, the effects of sharing leadership in knowledge versus manufacturing
teams have yet to be investigated and demonstrated. We therefore propose the
following hypothesis:
H2. Team work function moderates the relationship between shared leadership
and team performance such that shared leadership and team performance are
positively related for knowledge teams, whereas shared leadership and team
performance are negatively related for manufacturing teams.
3.2 Shared leadership and team autonomy
In their review of team work, Rasmussen and Jeppesen (2006) found that team
autonomy was a defining and constituent characteristic of teams. In general, team
autonomy reflects discretion over work tasks and conditions and, thus, implies
increased freedom and opportunities to make decisions and plan activities within the
limits of the team (Stewart, 2006; Stewart and Manz, 1995). Consequently, in order to
fully gain the advantages of working in a team and to leverage team member
knowledge and skills, teams have to be assigned with a certain degree of team
autonomy, in order to shape team tasks and conditions.
Different models for facilitating the understanding of the nature of team work have
been elaborated and proposed. Thompson and Wallace (1996) argue that normative,
governance, and technical dimensions are important in the conceptualization and
apprehension of team work. The governance dimension involves autonomy and the
design of leadership and, thus, seems particularly relevant and interesting for the
present purposes, since it emphasizes the interplay between leadership and autonomy
and their importance. Gulowsen (1979) further clarifies the different dimensions in
autonomy. This clarification has inspired other researchers to create scales for work
autonomy (e.g. Breaugh, 1999; Little, 1988; Murakami, 1997). In particular, building on

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

the work by Gulowsen (1979), Murakami (1997) provided a detailed operationalization

of autonomy. However, in Murakamis (1997) cross-national study of team autonomy in
19 automobile plants, it appears that besides specific dimensions of autonomy
(e.g. selection of team leader and new members, distribution of work, time flexibility,
methods of production, and production goals), the particular level of team autonomy
was important. Team autonomy is, thus, characterized both by different dimensions
and by different levels of intensity.
Team autonomy has been included in various studies particularly in relation to
team performance, team member attitudes and behaviors, and internal team processes
(e.g. Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Delarue et al., 2008; Ingvaldsen and Rolfsen, 2012; Rolfsen
and Langeland, 2012; Salas et al., 2004; Van Mierlo et al., 2006). Moreover, in a
meta-analysis of team design features and team performance, Stewart (2006) found a
positive relationship between team autonomy and team performance. Stewart and
Manz (1995) equally argue that influence and participation in teams lead to higher team
performance and team satisfaction. We therefore propose the following hypothesis:
H3. Team autonomy and team performance are positively related.
We further maintain that team autonomy is an important condition in relation to the
success of shared leadership processes in teams, since the experience of team
autonomy may enhance the likelihood that the team members engage themselves in the
mutual influence processes that constitute shared leadership. Following this, shared
leadership may be more effective when team members actually perceive that they have
the necessary team autonomy to share the lead, to influence each other, and to make
decisions collectively. In a similar vein, Perry et al. (1999, p. 37) emphasize that shared
leadership is unlikely in teams without power and authority to manage themselves.
Moreover, according to Yukl (2013), influence is at the core of leadership. Similarly,
shared leadership is defined as a mutual influence process (Pearce and Conger, 2003).
We therefore argue that the success of shared leadership processes depends on a
certain degree of experienced influence and autonomy in the team such that the team
members have the freedom to lead each other and to solve their tasks and plan their
activities autonomously within the team. Building on this, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H4. Team autonomy moderates the relationship between shared leadership and
team performance such that this relationship is more positive when team
autonomy is higher rather than lower.
4. Methods
4.1 Sample
Survey data were collected from a field sample consisting of 552 employees from a
Danish manufacturing company. Of the 763 surveys distributed to all employees, 562
usable surveys were returned yielding a response rate of 74 percent. However, teams
with fewer than three respondents were eliminated from the sample, which resulted in
the exclusion of five teams and ten individuals leaving us with 552 team members and
81 teams. Teams were formally established entities with external team leaders, who
were not part of the teams, but who interacted with the teams on a daily basis.
Accordingly, team leader responses were not included in the analyses, since the team
leaders were not a formal part of the teams and thus did not take part in solving team

Moderators
of shared
leadership
249

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

TPM
19,5/6

tasks, but merely served as supervisors. Teams varied considerably in size from 3 to 24
team members, with a mean of 10.89 SD 4:56: Average team tenure was 2.66 years
SD 2:68; while the average tenure in the organization was 5.45 SD 4:79:
Among the team members, whose age ranged from 19 to 66 years with a mean of 41.51
years SD 9:16; 63 percent of the members were male and 37 percent were female.

250

4.2 Procedure
In order to ensure that the content of the items were accurately presented in the Danish
items (Brislin, 1986), survey items were translated from English into Danish and then
back-translated into English by several independent individuals. Prior to the survey
administration in the entire organization, we conducted a pilot study with three teams
n 32: In the pilot phase, the wordings of items were tested and the scales were
tested for reliability.
Surveys were administered at the company during paid work hours over the course
of three weeks, either electronically or through paper-pencil (for employees with no
access to a computer).
4.3 Measures
The present study is part of a larger study on teams, influence, and leadership. Since all
the included measures (except for work function) were measured with reference to the
team, the measures were aggregated to the team level and analyses were conducted on
the team level. Accordingly, each individual rated the team on different
attributes/dimensions and then we averaged these scores across team members and
assigned each team member with their teams score in order to reflect the team. In order
to justify aggregation, we checked for adequate within-team agreement, rwg (James
et al., 1993). The Cronbachs alpha (a) measure was used to test for internal
consistency/reliability for each scale and ranged from 0.79 to 0.95 establishing a good
reliability of the scales.
4.3.1 Shared leadership. Hoch et al.s (2010a) short version of the shared and vertical
leadership questionnaire originally developed by Pearce and Sims (2002) was used to
measure shared leadership behaviors. However, for the present purpose, only the sub
scales pertaining to shared leadership were included. The questionnaire encompasses
six shared leadership subscales, including transformational leadership a 0:79;
transactional leadership a 0:79; directive leadership a 0:95; individual
empowering leadership a 0:88; team empowering leadership a 0:84; and
aversive leadership a 0:89 with four to six items each. An item example for shared
transformational leadership is My team colleagues seek a broad range of perspectives,
when solving problems. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The wordings of the items for shared
aversive leadership were slightly altered in the Danish version, in order to ensure
diversity in the items, since the Danish language is less comprehensive than English.
However, the main theoretical components of the subscale and the construct were
maintained.
To test the factor structure of the questionnaire in the present sample, we conducted
a second order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the six shared leadership sub
scales. Results of the CFA showed that the sub factor aversive leadership did not load
substantially on the shared leadership scale b 20:20: It was, therefore, omitted in

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

a subsequent factor analysis. This factor analysis confirmed the factor structure of
shared leadership with sub factors loading beyond 0.70, except from directive
leadership, which loaded 0.54. The Cronbachs alpha for this scale was 0.85.
In order to test for the aggregation of scores to the team level, we further calculated
rwg for all the subscales. The rwg for the overall shared leadership scale was 0.84 and
the rwg scores for the shared leadership subscales ranged from 0.62 to 0.86
(transformational leadership 0:86; transactional leadership 0:75; directive
leadership 0:62; individual empowering leadership 0:68; team empowering
leadership 0:78; indicating a moderate to strong interrater agreement (LeBreton
and Senter, 2008), which provided good basis for aggregation of scores.
4.3.2 Work function. Based on company records of team tasks and work function,
individuals and teams were coded as manufacturing (0) or knowledge (1)
workers/teams. Of the teams, 37 were manufacturing teams and the remaining 44
teams were knowledge teams. Building on company records as well as information
from shop stewards, HR, and the production manager, we obtained information
regarding team conditions and tasks. In particular, manufacturing teams were paid by
the hour and primarily worked at assembly and production lines and their work tasks
were mostly routine and characterized by few exceptions, high predictability, and
analyzability. Knowledge teams, on the other hand, were salaried office workers and
included various kinds of teams such as administrative teams, supply chain
management teams, production engineering teams, product development teams,
human resources teams, IT teams, finance teams, and quality improvement teams.
Tasks within these teams varied considerably according to the nature of the team
(e.g. engineering, finance etc.); however, in general, their tasks were characterized by
many exceptions, unpredictability, and more or less unanalyzable/uncertain tasks.
Educational level also varied considerably between manufacturing and knowledge
teams. Of the employees, 84 percent in manufacturing teams were unskilled or skilled
workers. In comparison, 75 percent of the employees in knowledge teams had a
medium-length or long education and only 2 percent were unskilled.
4.3.3 Team autonomy. Team autonomy was measured using a seven-item scale
adapted from Gulowsen (1979) and Murakami (1997), in order to encompass both
knowledge and manufacturing work. The scale measures the experience of having
discretion and being able to influence and plan ones task, work, and team conditions
as a team. Responses were indicated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (None)
to 5 (Much). The items that concern the overriding question of How much influence do
you experience that your team has on? Include:
.
Planning of the work tasks in the team?
.
The distribution of work tasks among the team members?
.
How working time is organized and scheduled?
.
Setting of the performance goals for the team?
.
Who should be members of the team?
.
How leadership is handled in the team?
.
The development of work tasks and functions in the team?
In order to validate the scale, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis, with
principal axis factoring (see Fabrigar et al., 1999). One factor emerged with factor

Moderators
of shared
leadership
251

TPM
19,5/6

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

252

loadings ranging from 0.61 to 0.76. To further test the factor structure of team
autonomy, we conducted a confirmative factor analysis. The resultant model
demonstrated a satisfactory fit: x 2 11 31:810; p , 0.001, x 2 =df 31:81=11
2:892; CFI 0:986; TLI 0:972; RMSEA 0:059 (90 percent CI: 0.035-0.083).
Moreover, all factor loadings were significant ( p , 0.001) and ranged from 0.54 to 0.79.
The Cronbachs alpha for the scale was 0.85, which further supported good internal
reliability of the scale. The scale was aggregated to the team level based in an
acceptable rwg score (James et al., 1993; LeBreton and Senter, 2008) of 0.75.
4.3.4 Team performance. Team performance was measured using the companys
annual performance rating system based on company records, which diminishes the
risks of common method bias due to same source bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The team
performance score builds on the immediate managers assessment of what
employees/teams have achieved (i.e. abilities to deliver the expected business
results) and how they have achieved it (i.e. the behaviors displayed in delivering and
reaching expected results). In our case, the immediate manager was the external,
formal team leader, who was not an inherent part of the team, but who interacted with
the team on a daily basis. The team performance score was indicated on a scale from 80
to 135. The scores ranged from 83 to 133, with a mean score of 105.28 SD 8:72:
4.3.5 Control variables. As team size, organizational tenure, and team tenure varied
considerably among teams and team members, we included these variables as controls
in the analyses, in order to account for their potential influences in relation to the
included variables. Team size was based on company records, whereas organizational
tenure and team tenure were based on self-reported measures.
4. Test of hypotheses
Following the procedure suggested by Aiken and West (1991), we standardized all
control and predictor variables, in order to avoid potential problems with collinearity.
After this, we created the interaction terms. We conducted three separate regression
analyses, in order to test the hypotheses independently. However, in all analyses, we
controlled for the influence of the control variables team size, mean team
organizational tenure, and mean team tenure in the first step of the analyses. The
first regression model tested the main effect of shared leadership on team performance.
In the second regression model, the two predictors, shared leadership and work
function, were entered in the second step followed by the interaction term Shared
Leadership Work Function in the third step. In the third model, shared leadership
and team autonomy were entered in the second step followed by the interaction team
Shared Leadership Team Autonomy in the third step.
5. Results
Means, SDs, and correlations are provided in Table I. We conducted hierarchical
regression analyses and ran moderated two-way regression analyses to test our
hypotheses. Table II shows the results of the regression analyses. In the first regression
model, we tested H1 and, thus, the direct effect of shared leadership on team
performance. Contrary to expectations, shared leadership was not significantly related
to team performance b 0:07; p . 0.10). The non-significant effect of
shared leadership on team performance was confirmed in the second regression
model b 20:06; p . 0.10). However, as proposed in H2, we found a significant and

Variables

Mean

Work function
0.52
1. Team size
10.89
2. Organizational tenure
5.50
3. Team Tenure
2.68
4. Shared leadership (composite)
3.24
5. Team autonomy
3.02
6. Team performance
105.28

SD

0.50
4.58
2.62 0.21 * * *
1.36 0.03
0.54 * * *
0.27 -0.16 * * * 0.13 * * 0.09 *
0.47 -0.15 * * * -0.04
0.11 * * 0.64 * * *
8.72 0.07
0.04
0.09 * 0.05
0.21 * * *

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

Note: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01, * * *p , 0.001. Work function: 0 manufacturing teams,

1 knowledge teams. n 552 individuals in 81 teams

Variables entered
Model 1
Team size
Team tenure
Organizational tenure
Shared leadership
DR 2
R2
F
Model 2
Team size
Team tenure
Organizational tenure
Shared leadership
Team work function
Shared leadership Team work function
DR 2
R2
F
Model 3
Team size
Team tenure
Organizational tenure
Shared leadership
Team autonomy
Shared leadership Team autonomy
DR 2
R2
F

Step 1

Step 2

0.09
0.09
2 0.02

0.10 *
0.10
2 0.03
0.07
0.01
0.02
2.49 *

0.01
2.46

0.09
0.09
2 0.02

0.08
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.15 * *
0.02
0.03
3.71 * *

0.09
0.09
2 0.02

0.11 *
0.05
0.03
2 0.12 *
0.31 * * *
0.06
0.07
8.33 * * *

Moderators
of shared
leadership
253
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, and
intercorrelations

Step 3

0.09 *
0.07
0.06
2 0.06
0.14 * *
0.17 * *
0.02
0.05
4.51 * * *

0.08
0.04
0.03
2 0.19 * *
0.35 * * *
0.19 * * *
0.03
0.11
10.34 * * *

Note: n 552 individuals in 81 teams. Dependent variable: Team performance. Standardized

regression weights are shown. *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01, * * *p , 0.001

Table II.
Hierarchical regression
analyses and moderated
hierarchical regression
analyses: shared
leadership, team work
function, and team
autonomy predicting
team performance

TPM
19,5/6

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

254

Figure 1.
Shared leadership and
team work function
predicting team
performance

positive interaction effect of shared leadership and work function on team performance
b 0:17; p 0:01 in the second model. This interaction explained a significant
amount of the variance in team performance above and beyond control variables and
main effects R 2 0:05; F1; 526 4:51; p , 0.001). To better interpret the form of
the interaction, we plotted it graphically in Figure 1 (Aiken and West, 1991). The
regression lines in the graph were plotted under the condition of low and high shared
leadership using one standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively. As
shown in Figure 1, the form of the interaction further confirmed hypothesis 2, as shared
leadership exhibited a positive relationship with team performance for knowledge
workers, whereas shared leadership was negatively related to team performance for
manufacturing workers.
In the third regression model, we tested H3 and H4. As proposed in H3, team
autonomy and team performance were significantly and positively related b 0:31;
p , 0.001). Contrary to what we hypothesized, the third regression model showed
that shared leadership and team performance were significantly negatively related
b 20:12; p , 0.05), when we control for the effects of team autonomy. This
suggests the importance of team autonomy, when implementing shared leadership.
Together with team autonomy, shared leadership explained a significant amount
of variance above and beyond the control variables R 2 0:07; F2; 527 8:33;
p , 0.001). As suggested in H4, team autonomy significantly moderated the
relationship shared leadership and team performance b 0:19; p , 0.001). In
Figure 2, we graphed this moderation under the conditions of low and high shared
leadership (one standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively). As can be
seen in Figure 2, the relationship between shared leadership and team performance
varied considerably under conditions of high and low team autonomy. As expected,
shared leadership and team performance were more negatively related, when
autonomy was low rather than high. However, Figure 2 also shows that shared
leadership and team performance were not positively related, when team autonomy
was one SD above the mean value. This suggests that in the present sample, shared

Moderators
of shared
leadership

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

255

Figure 2.
Shared leadership and
team autonomy predicting
team performance

leadership is only an advantage, when teams experience very high levels of team
autonomy. The interaction between team autonomy and shared leadership explained a
significant amount of variance in team performance above and beyond the control
variables and main effects R 2 0:11; F1; 526 10:34; p , 0.001).
The control variables entered in the first step of the analyses in all three models
were not significant in model 3. However, in model 1 (b 0.10, p , 0.05) and 2
b 0:09; p , 0.05) team size was positively and significantly related to team
performance. In order to account for possible biased results due to the presence of
control variables, we repeated all regression steps without including control variables
following the advice of Becker (2005). These analyses did not produce any deviating
results, which potentially strengthens the robustness of our findings.
To summarize our findings, H1 was not supported, whereas H2, H3, and H4 were
all supported.
6. Discussion
The present study contributes to our understanding of important potential moderators
of the function and effectiveness of sharing leadership in teams. In sum, our results
indicate a non-significant relationship between shared leadership and team
performance. However, the results further suggest that this relationship is
moderated by both work function and team autonomy, which implies that team
work conditions are crucial to the success and application of shared leadership.
Moreover, the results suggest that team autonomy is directly and positively related to
team performance.
While previous research almost exclusively demonstrates positive relationships
between shared leadership and team performance (e.g. Carson et al., 2007; Choi, 2009;
Hoch et al., 2010b; Pearce and Sims, 2002; Pearce et al., 2004; Small and Rentsch, 2010),
our study fails to find a significant direct effect of shared leadership on team
performance. This suggests that shared leadership may not always make a difference
in a team context. However, the non-significant main effect of shared leadership on

TPM
19,5/6

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

256

team performance similarly stresses the importance of considering moderators of this

relationship. As predicted, we find a moderating effect of team work function on the
relationship between shared leadership and team performance. This suggests that the
diversity in the nature of tasks due to different team work functions potentially creates
different conditions for the success of shared leadership. Our study is, to our
knowledge, the first to obtain evidence and to confirm the theoretical predictions
(e.g. Bligh et al., 2006; Cox et al., 2003; Pearce, 2004) that the effects of shared leadership
in teams may vary depending on team work function and consequently the degree of
routineness, the number of exceptions, and the degree of analyzability and complexity.
Therefore, while knowledge worker teams whose tasks vary and may be unfamiliar
seem to benefit from sharing leadership; our results indicate that shared leadership
may be detrimental to manufacturing team performance and, thus, to teams with
somewhat routine, familiar, and predictable tasks that do not necessarily require
knowledge and inputs from multiple individuals. Kerr and Jermiers (1978) Substitutes
for Leadership similarly predicts that unambiguous and routine tasks diminish the
need for leadership and, thereby, also the effectiveness of actively sharing leadership.
On the other hand, Pearce and Sims (2002) argue that shared leadership may act as an
effective substitute for more formalized leadership in knowledge work. Consequently,
shared leadership may not always be effective and advantageous. In a similar vein,
Wegge et al. (2012) emphasize that shared leadership in some instances may have
negative effects.
Our results further support the significance of providing team autonomy as our
findings confirm a significant and positive relationship between team autonomy and
team performance. Accordingly, providing a team with discretion, control, and
influence over tasks and conditions may facilitate the enactment of team member
knowledge and, thus, increase team performance. Moreover, our study demonstrates
the importance of team autonomy in relation to effective shared leadership processes
since we find that team autonomy significantly moderates the relationship between
shared leadership and team performance. In particular, our results suggest that the
degree of autonomy influences teams with high levels of shared leadership since these
teams perform significantly better when they experience high compared to low levels
of team autonomy (cf. Figure 2). Conversely, the level of team autonomy does not
impact performance for teams with low levels of shared leadership. We may interpret
this to suggest that for teams who share leadership, low levels of team autonomy
inhibit team members possibilities to effectively lead one another to higher levels of
performance, since they lack the necessary discretion and influence. On the other hand,
if team members do not share leadership, team autonomy is less important. Even
though our findings indicate that shared leadership still may have a negative impact
on team performance under conditions of high team autonomy, it may be that very
high levels of team autonomy help in applying and distributing responsibilities,
competencies, and leadership in the team and thus in facilitating shared leadership
processes. Team autonomy, thus, seems to be a crucial factor in determining the
effectiveness and appropriateness of shared leadership in a team setting.
Overall, our results indicate that the relationship between shared leadership and
team performance is not necessarily a positive and straight forward one. In particular,
we find that it is significantly moderated by both team work function and team
autonomy.

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

6.1 Practical implications

The present study provides a potentially useful framework for understanding
boundary conditions for the effectiveness and usefulness of shared leadership.
Specifically, our results suggest the importance of considering team work function and
the level of actual experienced team autonomy in relation to shared leadership
processes. Consequently, shared leadership does not seem to be applicable to
manufacturing teams that face somewhat routine, predictable, and familiar tasks. On
the other hand, shared leadership may be effective in knowledge teams where mutual
interaction and information sharing is crucial to solve often unfamiliar and
unpredictable tasks. Moreover, if organizations want to maintain effective shared
leadership processes, they have to ensure work conditions that allow team members to
influence their team conditions and to apply their knowledge and skills autonomously.
6.2 Limitations
While our study has several strengths and offers various promising contributions, it is
not without limitations. The design of our study is cross-sectional for which reason it is
not possible to infer direct causation. In addition, the present study is a field study
conducted in a Danish manufacturing context. It may be that this context varies
considerably from contexts in other countries. Therefore, without evidence from
further studies, this potentially limits the generalizability of the present study.
However, the sub-organization that we investigated is part of a larger global
organization, which may mitigate the effects of the specific Danish context.
Another limitation is that we did not control for the effects of team composition
variables such as experience, ability, and diversity, which may affect the relationship
between shared leadership and team performance (Perry et al., 1999). Moreover, our
correlation coefficients and effect sizes are generally low and also somewhat lower than
previous work on shared leadership (e.g. Carson et al., 2007; Hoch et al., 2010b, Pearce
and Sims, 2002), which implies that care must be taken when making conclusions and
further research is needed to uncover the implications of shared leadership in various
contexts. Furthermore, the low, though significant, interaction effects imply that
shared leadership does not account for all the variance in team performance. The
residue variance in this study may be explained by other variables that affect shared
leadership and team performance such as, for example, team composition (Perry et al.,
1999), motivation (Hooker and Csikszentmihalyi, 2003), and team potency
Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002. It also suggests that the nature of shared leadership
is multi-causal, which points to the necessity of further exploring antecedent and
boundary conditions for the effectiveness of shared leadership.
6.3 Future research
Future research can benefit from investigating the leadership structure of shared
leadership, in order to detangle and clarify the dynamics of and interplay among
different leadership dimensions inherent in the construct. For example, it may be that
some leadership behaviors are more effective than others depending on team context
and the specific tasks of the team. Moreover, it would be relevant to further clarify the
theoretical and empirical relationships among shared leadership and other types of
team leadership such as rotating leadership (Erez et al., 2002) and informal leadership
(Neubert, 1999).

Moderators
of shared
leadership
257

TPM
19,5/6

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

258

Future shared leadership research should also address the development of shared
leadership over time by conducting longitudinal studies. For example, it seems likely
that the importance of moderators on the effectiveness of shared leadership fluctuates
over time. Moreover, the level of team autonomy may similarly be affected by the level
of shared leadership such that the two interact and facilitate one another over time. It is
also likely that the different dimensions of team autonomy serve different functions in
relation to shared leadership and, thus, are related to different outcomes. In addition,
the relationship and dynamics between shared leadership and varying types of
complexity and routineness beyond that represented by team work function is
another interesting area for future research.
7. Conclusions
The present study qualifies the relevance of shared leadership in a team context and
provides an initial understanding of conditions that affect the relationship between
shared leadership and team performance. Surprisingly, we find a non-significant
relationship between shared leadership and team performance. However, we also find
that this relationship is moderated by team work function and team autonomy. More
specifically, our results indicate that sharing leadership is a performance advantage in
knowledge teams, but a disadvantage in manufacturing teams. In addition, we find
that team autonomy positively and significantly moderates the relationship between
shared leadership and team performance such that team performance suffers in teams
with low levels of team autonomy combined with high levels of shared leadership. Our
results, therefore, suggest that in order to facilitate performance, team based
organizations should pay attention to the level of formalization of shared leadership
depending on the nature of tasks in the team. Moreover, managers should provide
teams that share leadership with high levels of autonomy in order to facilitate team
performance.
References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), Leadership: current theories, research, and
future directions, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 421-449.
Becker, T.E. (2005), Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational
research: a qualitative analysis with recommendations, Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 8, pp. 274-289.
Bergman, J.Z., Rentsch, J.R., Small, E.E., Davenport, S.W. and Bergman, S.M. (2012), The shared
leadership process in decision-making teams, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 152
No. 1, pp. 17-42.
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L. and Kohles, J.C. (2006), The importance of self- and shared leadership in
team based knowledge work, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 296-318.
Boies, K., Lvina, E. and Martens, M.L. (2010), Shared leadership and team performance in a
business strategy simulation, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 195-202.
Bolden, R. (2011), Distributed leadership in organizations: a review of theory and research,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, pp. 251-269.
Breaugh, J.A. (1999), Further investigating of the work autonomy scales: two studies, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 357-373.

Brislin, R.W. (1986), The wording and translation of research instruments, in Lonner, W.J. and
Berry, J.W. (Eds) Field Methods in Cross-cultural Research, Cross-cultural Research and
Methodology Series, Vol. 8, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 137-164.
Burke, C.S., DiazGranados, C.S. and Salas, E. (2011), Team leadership: a review and look ahead,
in Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Jackson, B., Grint, K. and Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds), The Sage
Handbook of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 338-352.
Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007), Shared leadership in teams: an investigation
of antecedent conditions and performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50
No. 5, pp. 1217-1234.

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

Carte, T.A., Chidambaram, L. and Becker, A. (2006), Emergent leadership in self-managed

virtual teams: a longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors,
Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 15, pp. 323-343.
Choi, S. (2009), The emergence of shared leadership from organizational dimensions of local
government, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 94-114.
Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from
the shop floor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-290.
Cox, J.F., Pearce, C.L. and Perry, M.L. (2003), Toward a model of shared leadership and
distributed influence in the innovation process: how shared leadership can enhance new
product development team dynamics and effectiveness, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A.
(Eds), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 48-76.
Daft, R.L. and Macintosh, N.B. (1981), A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality
of information processing in organizational work units, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 207-224.
Day, D.V., Gronn, P. and Salas, E. (2004), Leadership capacity in teams, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 857-880.
Day, D.V., Gronn, P. and Salas, E. (2006), Leadership in team-based organizations: on the
threshold of a new era, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 211-216.
Delarue, A., Van Hootegem, G., Proctor, S. and Burridge, M. (2008), Teamworking and
organizational performance: a review of survey-based research, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 2, pp. 127-148.
Drucker, P.F. (1995), Management in Time of Great Change, Penguin Putnam, New York, NY.
Drucker, P.F. (1999), Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest challenge, California
Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 79-94.
Drucker, P.F. (2008), The Age of Discontinuity. Guidelines to Our Changing Society, 8th ed.,
Transaction Publishers, London.
Ensley, M.D., Hmieleski, K.M. and Pearce, C.L. (2006), The importance of vertical and shared
leadership within new venture top management teams: implications for the performance of
teams, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 217-231.
Erez, A., LePine, J.A. and Elms, H. (2002), Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on
the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasi-experiment, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 929-948.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. and Strahan, E.J. (1999), Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research, Psychological Methods, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 272-299.

Moderators
of shared
leadership
259

TPM
19,5/6

Fitzsimons, D., James, K.T. and Denyer, D. (2011), Alternative approaches for studying shared
and distributed leadership, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13,
pp. 313-328.
Friedrich, T.L., Vessey, W.B., Schuelke, M.J., Ruark, G.A. and Mumford, M.D. (2009), A
framework for understanding collective leadership: the selective utilization of leader and
team expertise within networks, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 933-958.

260

Gronn, P. (2002), Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13,
pp. 423-451.
Gulowsen, J. (1979), A measure of work-group-autonomy, in Davis, L.E. and Taylor, J.C. (Eds),
Design of Jobs, 2nd ed., Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 206-218.

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

Hiller, N.J., Day, D.V. and Vance, R.J. (2006), Collective enactment of leadership roles and team
effectiveness: a field study, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 387-397.
Hoch, J.E., Dulebohn, J. and Pearce, C.L. (2010a), Shared Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ):
developing a short scale to measure shared and vertical leadership in teams, paper
presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Conference,
Atlanta, GA, 8-10 April.
Hoch, J.E., Pearce, C.L. and Welzel, L. (2010b), Is the most effective team leadership shared? The
impact of shared leadership, age diversity, and coordination on team performance,
Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 105-116.
Hooker, C. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003), Flow, creativity, and shared leadership: rethinking
the motivation and structuring of knowledge work, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds),
Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 217-234.
Hopp, W.J., Iravani, S.M.R. and Liu, F. (2009), Managing white-collar work: an
operations-oriented survey, Productions and Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 1-32.
Ingvaldsen, J.A. and Rolfsen, M. (2012), Autonomous work groups and the challenge of
inter-group coordination, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 7, pp. 861-881.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1993), rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater
agreement, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 306-309.
Kerr, S. and Jermier, J.M. (1978), Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 375-403.
LeBreton, J.M. and Senter, J.L. (2008), Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
interrater agreement, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 815-852.
Little, L. (1988), The Group Participation Index: a measure of work group autonomy, Human
Resource Management Australia, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 23-33.
Marks, A. and Richards, J. (2012), Developing ideas and concepts in teamwork research: where
do we go from here?, Employee Relations, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 228-234.
Morgeson, F.P., DeRue, D.S. and Karam, E.P. (2010), Leadership in teams: a functional approach
to understanding leadership structures and processes, Journal of Management, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 5-39.
Mueller, F., Proctor, S. and Buchanan, D. (2000), Teamworking in its context(s): antecedents,
nature and dimensions, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1387-1424.
Murakami, T. (1997), The autonomy of teams in the car industry a cross national comparison,
Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 749-758.

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

Neubert, M.J. (1999), Too much of a good thing or the more the merrier? Exploring the
dispersion and gender composition of informal leadership in manufacturing teams, Small
Group Research, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 635-646.
Pearce, C.L. (2004), The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to
transform knowledge work, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 47-57.
Pearce, C.L. (2010), Leading knowledge workers: beyond the era of command and control, in
Pearce, C.L., Maciariello, J.A. and Yamawaki, H. (Eds), The Drucker Difference. What the
Worlds Greatest Management Thinker Means to Todays Business Leaders, McGraw Hill,
New York, NY.
Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (2003), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows And Whys of
Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pearce, C.L. and Manz, C.C. (2005), The importance of self- and shared leadership in knowledge
work, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 130-140.
Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. (2000), Shared leadership: toward a multi-level theory of leadership,
Team Development, Vol. 7, pp. 115-139.
Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. (2002), Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
effectiveness of chance management teams: an examination of aversive, directive,
transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors, Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 172-197.
Pearce, C.L., Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (2009), Where do we go from here? Is shared leadership
the key to team success?, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 234-238.
Pearce, C.L., Yoo, Y. and Alavi, M. (2004), Leadership, social work and virtual teams: the relative
influence of vertical versus shared leadership in the non-profit sector, in Riggio, R.E. and
Smith-Orr, S. (Eds), Improving Leadership in Non-profit Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 180-203.
Perrow, C. (1967), A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 194-208.
Perry, M.L., Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. (1999), Empowered selling teams: how shared leadership
can contribute to selling outcomes, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 35-51.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rasmussen, T.H. and Jeppesen, H.J. (2006), Teamwork and associated psychological factors: a
review, Work & Stress, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 105-128.
Rolfsen, M. and Langeland, C. (2012), Successful maintenance practice through team
autonomy, Employee Relations, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 306-321.
Salas, E., Stagl, K.C. and Burke, C.S. (2004), 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations:
research themes and emerging needs, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY, pp. 47-91.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murray, W., Avolio, B.J. and Jung, D. (2002), Longitudinal model of the
effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 66-96.
Small, E.E. and Rentsch, J.R. (2010), Shared leadership in teams: a matter of distribution,
Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 203-211.

Moderators
of shared
leadership
261

TPM
19,5/6

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

262

Stewart, G.L. (2006), A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and
team performance, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 29-54.
Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1995), Leadership for self-managing work teams: a typology and
integrative model, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 747-770.
Thompson, P. and Wallace, T. (1996), Redesigning production through team working. Case
studies from Volvo Truck Corporation, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 103-118.
Van Mierlo, H., Rutte, C.G., Vermunt, J.K., Kompier, M.A.J. and Doorewaard, J.A.M.C. (2006),
Individual autonomy in work teams: the role of team autonomy, self-efficacy, and social
support, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 281-299.
Wassenaar, C.L. and Pearce, C.L. (2012), The nature of shared leadership, in Day, D.V. and
Antonakis, J. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 363-389.
Wegge, J., Jeppesen, H.J. and Weber, W.G. (2012), Broadening our perspective: we-leadership is
both less romantic and more democratic, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 418-420.
Withey, M., Daft, R.L. and Cooper, W.H. (1983), Measures of Perrows work unit technology: an
empirical assessment and a new scale, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 45-63.
Yammarino, F.J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K. and Shuffler, M.L. (2012), Collectivistic
leadership approaches: putting the we in leadership science and practice, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 382-402.
Yukl, G. (2008), How leaders influence organizational effectiveness, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 19, pp. 708-722.
Yukl, G. (2013), Leadership in Organizations, 8th ed., Pearson Education, Harlow.
Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L. and Marks, M.A. (2001), Team leadership, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 451-483.
About the authors
Maj S. Fausing is a PhD candidate in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Maj S. Fausing
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: maj@psy.au.dk
Hans Jeppe Jeppesen is a Professor in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Thomas S. Jnsson is an Associate Professor in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Joshua Lewandowski is a PhD candidate in Organizational Behavior.
Michelle C. Bligh is an Associate Professor in Organizational Behavior.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by Open University Malaysia At 19:10 09 March 2016 (PT)

1. Jeffery D. Houghton, Craig L. Pearce, Charles C. Manz, Stephen Courtright, Greg L. Stewart. 2014.
Sharing is caring: Toward a model of proactive caring through shared leadership. Human Resource
Management Review . [CrossRef]